What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed as skeletal and because applicant is not aggrieved.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, which was reviewed for sufficiency and aggrievement.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition was skeletal, failed to state grounds or cite the record, and applicant was not aggrieved.
From the decision · page 4(1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore, it is subject to dismissal. Moreover, we have reviewed the record in this matter and are persuaded that applicant is not aggrieved. If we were to address the merits, we would affirm the WCJ's February 16, 2024 Findings, Award and Order for the reason stated in the Joint Opinion on Decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was skeletal, failed to state grounds or cite the record, and applicant was not aggrieved.
Favours Defendant prevailed
These deficiencies required dismissal under the Labor Code and Board rules.
From the decision · page 4(1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore, it is subject to dismissal. Moreover, we have reviewed the record in this matter and are persuaded that applicant is not aggrieved. If we were to address the merits, we would affirm the WCJ's February 16, 2024 Findings, Award and Order for the reason stated in the Joint Opinion on Decision.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code § 5902
A petition for reconsideration must set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. It must be verified and contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies.
Petition was dismissed for failing to meet these requirements.
From the decision · page 4in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (Lab. Code, § 5902.) Moreover, the Appeals Board Rules provide in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945 and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10972. In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10945, 10972
A petition for reconsideration may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved.
Petition was dismissed for failing to meet these requirements.
From the decision · page 4in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (Lab. Code, § 5902.) Moreover, the Appeals Board Rules provide in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945 and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10972. In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petition for Reconsideration was skeletal, handwritten in Spanish, missing portions, and not served on defense counsel; failed to state grounds or cite record.
From the decision · page 4(1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore, it is subject to dismissal. Moreover, we have reviewed the record in this matter and are persuaded that applicant is not aggrieved. If we were to address the merits, we would affirm the WCJ's February 16, 2024 Findings, Award and Order for the reason stated in the Joint Opinion on Decision.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.